Is it linguistically correct for a person to use the word 'Create' for other than the meaning of bringing from non-existence into existence, which is only for God? Did this word undergo a natural change over time to the extent that we recognize a new authentic meaning, like 'make' or 'construct'?

Bringing from no-existence into existence is only for God? This post did not exist. Now this post exists. So you are saying you are God. That won't sit well with the real God.
–
RegDwigнt♦Aug 27 '13 at 23:21

4 Answers
4

Origin of the verb ‘create’

‘Create’ does not come from Latin creatra; it comes from the past passive participle creātus, from the verb creāre ‘to create’. (Like all other verbs in -ate in English, which also come from a generalised participle of verbs that originally belonged in the first declension in -āre in Latin.)

This verb in itself is from a Proto-Indo-European root *ḱerh₂- whose original meaning seems to have been ‘grow’. Creāre is kind of a conflation of stem forms (full grade *ḱerh₂- > Lat. cer(i)-; zero grade ḱr̥h₂- > Lat. crā-; and vrddhi forms with ḱreh₂- > Lat. crē-), but it is in essence an old causative verb, as with nearly all verbs in the first declension in Latin: its original meaning was ‘to make [something] grow’.

Making something grow is only a small step away from creating it, and that’s the path the verb took within Latin. In Latin, thus, the sense of ‘grow’ was relegated to the original inchoative verb (‘to start growing’), crēscere, which is found in English loanwords such as ‘crescent’ (waxing or growing moon) and ‘crescendo’ (steadily growing volume/pace). In other languages, similar changes of course took place, but the root is the same as that found in Greek κόρος/κόρη kóros/kórē ‘boy/girl’ (the ones that are growing = kids) or in Icelandic hirsi ‘millet’ (‘the grower’ = a type of corn).

Meanings of the verb ‘create’

As we have already seen, the original meaning of the word has nothing to do with creation—that is an extended meaning that developed in Latin.

The specific meaning of ‘creating somethingness out of nothingness’ that you attribute to God alone is also not found in Latin—the Romans themselves used the verb for many things that they, not their gods, created.

Even if they hadn’t, it is important to note that the verb is Latin, i.e., it was used in the Roman world. The Romans did not have the same monotheistic view of the world that some people today have: creation from nothingness to somethingness was not considered a godly prerogative at all. Within Christianity, it is a commonly held belief, but this verb was used long before the Romans ever heard of Christianity. Whether one religion or the other is true, or whether one god or set of gods or the other really does exist, is quite irrelevant to this: the Romans—who used the word—were unaware of this Christianity-based restriction on the concept of creation, so naturally they did not apply it to their words.

In other words, the only shift in meaning that has occurred with the word is not one away from ‘divine-only prerogative creation’ to simply ‘making’, but rather the opposite: from any ol’ act of making, to the more limited creation that some hold only God is capable of.

There is no mention of God there, how is creating exclusive to God? I create things every time I cook for example. I can also create a problem if I go and punch Mike Tyson or I can create a piece of music or a software program. There is nothing in the word's meaning or etymology that restricts it to a deity. You just created a question, your question did not exist before you wrote it, how is that not "bringing from no-existence into existence"?

As far as I can tell, the original Latin meaning is the same as the current one.

I guess if you believe in a capital C Creator then that might indicate you're talking about a deity if you capitalize it. Your explanation is perfect: "your question did not exist before you wrote it"!
–
dcaswellAug 27 '13 at 16:59

Create in todays usage could pertain to a Latin Root "to make".
It can also be understood as "to cause to come into existence" or "to manifest, or "to grow, to produce or to construct".
That being stated, when you imagine up an Idea, outcome or process isn't this the pre-creative stage that goes on in the spiritual realm or GOD-like realm, prior to manifestation, and when invested with enough attention or faith or desire, grows or moves from the un-manifest to the manifest, or nonexistent to existing, within the time-space realm.

Given that there is a part of us that has pre-creative capacity, the mind-body ego-centric self wants to lay claim to this power if it is believed to exist as an innate quality of who we are. Manifestation is the role of the female or mother metaphor, to cause to become manifest is the role of the male or father metaphor. These are seperate and both required as unified roles in CREATION.

It is like a courtship between lovers rather than a dominant or subservient relationship, giving create a place for humans that have the ability of GOD as in the story of Jesus who states, "We will do greater works than he".

This is a philosophical comment on the notion of creation; it's not really relevant to this question (or site) at all, which is one of language usage and etymology.
–
Janus Bahs JacquetSep 27 '14 at 10:12